(Copyright laws in India - Copyright lawyers

Copyright?
t is a form of intellectual property protection granted under Indian law to the creators of original works of authorship such as literary works (i
r programs, tables and compilations including computer databases which may be expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form,
a machine readable medium), dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematographic films and sound recordings.

t law protects expressions of ideas rather than the ideas themselves. Under section 13 of the Copyright Act 1957, copyright protection is con
y works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, cinematograph films and sound recording. For example, books, computer programs
d under the Act as literary works.

t refers to a bundle of exclusive rights vested in the owner of copyright by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. These rights can be exercised only
copyright or by any other person who is duly licensed in this regard by the owner of copyright. These rights include the right of adaptation, r
tion, right of publication, right to make translations, communication to public etc.

t protection is conferred on all Original literary, artistic, musical or dramatic, cinematograph and sound recording works. Original means, tha
not been copied from any other source. Copyright protection commences the moment a work is created, and its registration is optional. How
s advisable to obtain a registration for a better protection. Copyright registration does not confer any rights and is merely a prima facie proof
espect of the work in the Copyright Register maintained by the Registrar of Copyrights.

ection 17 of the Act, the author or creator of the work is the first owner of copyright. An exception to this rule is that, the employer becomes t
copyright in circumstances where the employee creates a work in the course of and scope of employment.
t registration is invaluable to a copyright holder who wishes to take a
iminal action against the infringer. Registration formalities are simple
Copyright registration right from your Desktop !!
paperwork is least. In case, the work has been created by a person
n employee, it would be necessary to file with the application, a copy Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at: admin@legalserviceindia.com
signment deed.

t Act | Copyright Registration in India | Music Copyright | Copyright Certificate | Copyright of Cinematograph Films | Bern Convention | Copy

e | Copyright Registration Procedure | Copyright Online in India

he supreme advantages of copyright protection is that protection is available in several countries across the world, although the work is first

d in India by reason of India being a member of Berne Convention. Protection is given to works first published in India, in respect of all count

ber states to treaties and conventions to which India is a member. Thus, without formally applying for protection, copyright protection is avai

st published in India, across several countries. Also, the government of India has by virtue of the International Copyright Order, 1999, extend

t protection to works first published outside India.

erspective on copyright protection:

yright Act, 1957 provides copyright protection in India. It confers copyright protection in the following two forms:

omic rights of the author, and

l Rights of the author.

nomic Rights:

yright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; cinematographs films and sound recordings. The authors of copyright

d works enjoy economic rights u/s 14 of the Act. The rights are mainly, in respect of literary, dramatic and musical, other than computer progr

e the work in any material form including the storing of it in any medium by electronic means, to issue copies of the work to the public, to pe

in public or communicating it to the public, to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work, and to make any tran

ation of the work. In the case of computer program, the author enjoys in addition to the aforesaid rights, the right to sell or give on hire, or off

ire any copy of the computer program regardless whether such copy has been sold or given on hire on earlier occasions. In the case of an a

e rights available to an author include the right to reproduce the work in any material form, including depiction in three dimensions of a two

nal work or in two dimensions of a three dimensional work, to communicate or issues copies of the work to the public, to include the work in

ograph work, and to make any adaptation of the work. In the case of cinematograph film, the author enjoys the right to make a copy of the film

a photograph of any image forming part thereof, to sell or give on hire or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the film, and to communicate the

c. These rights are similarly available to the author of sound recording. In addition to the aforesaid rights, the author of a painting, sculpture,

anuscript of a literary, dramatic or musical work, if he was the first owner of the copyright, shall be entitled to have a right to share in the resa

original copy provided that the resale price exceeds rupees ten thousand.

al Rights:

57 of the Act defines the two basic moral rights of an author. These are:

of paternity, and

of integrity.

of paternity refers to a right of an author to claim authorship of work and a right to prevent all others from claiming authorship of his work. R

empowers the author to prevent distortion, mutilation or other alterations of his work, or any other action in relation to said work, which would

al to his honour or reputation. The proviso to section 57(1) provides that the author shall not have any right to restrain or claim damages in re

daptation of a computer program to which section 52 (1)(aa) applies (i.e. reverse engineering of the same). It must be noted that failure to dis

o display it to the satisfaction of the author shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the rights conferred by this section. The legal

tatives of the author may exercise the rights conferred upon an author of a work by section 57(1), other than the right to claim authorship of

udiciary Response:

onse of Indian judiciary regarding copyright protection can be grouped under the following headings:

ership of copyright,

dictional aspect,

izance taken by the court,

gement of copyright,

ability of alternative remedy, and

fication of copyright.

ership of copyright: The ownership in copyright may vest in different persons under different circumstances.

n Book company v Navin J.Desai, the question involved was whether there is any copyright in the reporting of the judgment of a court. The

rt observed: It is not denied that under section 2(k) of the Copyright Act, a work which is made or published under the direction or control of

bunal or other judicial authority in India is a Government work. Under section 52(q), the reproduction or publication of any judgment or order

bunal or other judicial authority shall not constitute infringement of copyright of the government in these works. It is thus clear that it is open t

dy to reproduce and publish the government work including the judgment/ order of a court. However, in case, a person by extensive reading,

d comparison and with the exercise of taste and judgment has made certain comments about judgment or has written a commentary thereo

a comment and commentary is entitled to protection under the Copyright Act.

rt further observed: In terms of section 52(1)(q) of the Act, reproduction of a judgment of the court is an exception to the infringement of the

t. The orders and judgments of the court are in the public domain and anyone can publish them. Not only that being a Government work, no

t exists in these orders and judgments. No one can claim copyright in these judgments and orders of the court merely on the ground that he

d them in his book. Changes consisting of elimination, changes of spelling, elimination or addition of quotations and corrections of typograph
are trivial and hence no copyright exists therein.

j Soaps (P) Ltd v Dora Cosmetics Co, the Delhi High Court held that where the carton was designed for valuable consideration by a person

f his employment for and on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant had led no evidence in his favour, the plaintiff is the assignee and the le
copyright in the carton including the logo.

dictional aspect: The question of territorial jurisdiction of the court to deal with copyright infringement was considered by the courts on seve

s.

pillar Inc v Kailash Nichani, the plaintiff, a foreign company, was carrying on business in several places in India including Delhi, through its In

ors and collaborators. The plaintiff claimed the relief of ad-interim injunction for preventing infringement of its copyright by the defendant, thou

nt was dealing in different goods. The Delhi high Court held that it was not necessary to show that the business being carried on by the plain

ould necessarily be in respect of footwear and articles of clothing as well. It is sufficient if the business was being carried on by the plaintiff in

er that there was an infringement of plaintiffs copyright in respect of certain goods, which were being sold by the defendant in Delhi. The co

eld that section 62 of the Copyright Act makes an obvious and significant departure from the norm that the choice of jurisdiction should prima

d by the convenience of the defendant. The legislature in its wisdom introduced this provision laying down absolutely opposite norm than the

ction 20 CPC. The purpose is to expose the transgressor with inconvenience rather than compelling the sufferer to chase after the former.

man Das Behari Lal v Padam Trading Co, the Delhi High Court observed that the plaintiff being a firm functioning at Delhi, the suit filed by it

urts is maintainable and is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC as prayed. The Court further observed that the plea reg

erritorial jurisdiction is not covered by Order7 rule 11 of CPC. The court observed that even if it is held that this court has not the territorial

on, the plaint cannot be rejected. At the most it can be returned for presentation to the proper court.

r SA and Anr v Eupharma Laboratories Ltd & Anr, the Supreme Court finally settled the position in this regard. The Court observed: Section

e read as limiting the jurisdiction of the District Court only to cases where the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or where there a

such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or presently works for gain. It prescribes an additional gro

g the jurisdiction of a court over and above the normal grounds as laid down in Section 20 of the C.P.C. Even if the jurisdiction of the Court w

d in the manner construed by the Division Bench, it is evident not only from the cause title but also from the body of the plaint that the Appell

n business within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The Appellant No 2 certainly a person instituting the suit. The Division Bench went

ess words of the statute and negatived the jurisdiction of the Court because it found that the Appellant No 2 had not claimed ownership of the

t, infringement of which was claimed in the suit. The appellant No 2 may not be entitled to the relief claimed in the suit but that is no reason f

hat it was not a person who had instituted the suit within the meaning of Section 62(2) of the Act.

nizance taken by the court: To prevent copyright infringement, timely cognizance taking by the appropriate court is absolutely essential. Th

ance by the court depends upon the limitation period as mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963 and Cr.P.C, 1973.

Pon Pandian v State, the Madras High Court, while dealing with section 68A of the Copyright Act, observed: The Court can take cognizance
the charge sheet is filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C and in computing the period of limitation,

ission of the offence is to be reckoned as the starting point. If the charge sheet is not filled so, the Court has no power to entertain the comp

t referred the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v Sarwan Singh in which it was observed: The object of Cr.P.C in putting a b

on the prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappe

revent abuse of the process of Court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence. The object, which the sta

sub-serve, is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, of utmos

ce that any prosecution, whether by State or a private complainant, must abide by the letter of the law or to take the risk of the prosecution f

nd of limitation

Devendra Somabhai Naik v Accurate Transheet Pvt Ltd, the Gujarat High Court explained the inter-relationship between Article 137 of the L

3 and section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court observed: The order passed by the by the Copyright Board is an order whereby it is h

sions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act are not applicable and the board has also held that the Copyright Board is a Tribunal and quasi-judic

for all other purposes except for the purposes which are specifically provided in the Copyright Act. It is an order by which an application und

50 of the Copyright act is entertained and the Copyright Board will decide the same on merits. The Copyright Board does not believe the dela

by the present appellant. Entertaining an application is a matter of discretion. In the present case, the Copyright Board in its wisdom, overruli

on that the application was barred by limitation, decided to entertain the application. It is a discretionary order

gement of copyright:

ght owner cannot enjoy his rights unless infringement of the same is stringently dealt with by the Courts .The approach of the Indian Judiciar
very satisfactory.

shak Puneet Prashant Prakashan v Distt.judge, Bulandshahr and Ashok Prakashan (Regd) the Allahabad High Court held that if the p

s a book by adding any word before or after the book Bal Bharati, he infringes the copyright of the respondent.

stan Pencils Ltd v Alpna Cottage Industries the Copyright Board of Goa held that where the similarities between the artistic works of the

amental and substantial in material aspects, it would amount to copyright violation and the defendants copyright is liable to be expunged fro

of copyright.

rd referred the decision of Prem Singh v Cec Industries wherein it was observed: In a case where the first party himself is shown to have

or imitated a trademark and copyright of a third party, then Courts can resolutely decline to step in aid of this party because honesty of actio

he matter and Courts protection is extended only on the principle that damage to a party who has acquired goodwill or reputation in certain tr

making his goods, should not be allowed to be affected by the dishonest user of the same by another.

rd further referred the decision of the apex court in R.G. Anand v M/S Delux Films where the Court observed: Where the same idea is bein

ed in a different manner, it is manifest that the source being common, similarities are bound to occur. In such a case, the Courts should deter

or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work with some variat

here. In other words, in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that th

nt is guilty of the act of piracy.

aya Enterprises Ltd v T.V. Venugopal the division bench of the Andhara Pradesh High Court held that even though the defendant has registe

nder the Trademark Act, that may not come to the aid of the defendant as the case of the plaintiff is that it owns a copyright of the artistic wor

right Act and no registration is required for the same. Thus the court held that the plaintiff was justified in alleging infringement of his artistic

nchi Film Exchange v state of MP the appellants apprehending the violation of their copyright in the film, prayed for the writ of Mandamus wi

austing the alternative remedy available under the Copyright Act. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Observed: There is

n the submission that it is the duty of police to be watchful in the area and detect crime and punish the criminal in accordance with law. But t

rs did not complain that any stage nor did they seek action from other functionaries of the State. They ask for mandamus without putting the

e before the respondent and seeking their reaction. The writ petition was filed 16 days before the release of the film. Enough time appellants

h the authorities/ police and later to the respondents giving their reaction to the grievance and how it was ready to deal with the matter. There

e demand was put across and reaction awaited for some time, moving the court was premature and unsustainable. Therefore, petition was

prehension that appellants would be deprived of their rights which did not exist when claim for mandamus was made. Mandamus can be gra

n default, commission, or omission takes place which had not happened in this case.

Inc v Shoban Lal Jain the Madras High Court held that latches and acquiescence is a good defence to an action for copyright infringement. T

d that the plaintiff having allowed the defendant to carry on the business under the trade name of the plaintiff for 7 years is prima facie guilty

ence and it cannot claim for relief of injunction against the defendant as the balance of convenience is in favour of him.

ability of alternative remedy: The availability of an efficacious alternative remedy prevents a person from invoking the writ jurisdiction of th

nchi Film Exchange and Another v State of M.P and others petitioners instead of approaching the concerned authorities filed a writ petit

Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed: The film was not yet released. The petitioners did not approach the respondents. There w

n the part of the respondents in performance of their legal duties with respect of the right complained of. The entire machinery was put to dou

oners on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition that it is to the common knowledge that they do not take action. Thus apprehen

ment of their rights, the writ petition was filed. The petitioners should have approached the concerned authorities first; and in the event of thei

reventive measures/seizure of cassettes under the M.P.Police Regulations and the copyright Act, the petitioners should have approached th

s entertained and relief readily granted before release of the movie without approaching the respondents who have to prevent threatened vio

t, it would open a flood gate of litigation. The copyright Act provides adequate safeguards and procedure. It cannot be said that a mere

nsion that certain offence may take place, a writ can be filed seeking a direction that no such offence be allowed to take place. First authoriti

ked to prevent it. The function of the police is to prevent piracy and unauthorized exhibition. In the instant case there was no inaction on the p

e and other concerned officials and they were unnecessarily dragged in writ petition without even putting them to notice of proposed writ. No

notice was served, no specific complaint was lodged. Thus writ is not maintainable.

fication of copyright:

ctification proceedings, an entry in the Copyright Register pertaining to a particular copyright can be expunged by the Copyright Board.

bu Priyadarshi v Badshah Industries the Division bench of the Patna high Court Observed: Rule 16(3) of the Copyright Rules, 1958 which e

iple of natural justice provides that when there is a rival claim with regard to subject matter of the copyright then no order can be passed in f

y without hearing the application of the other applicant. Non-observance of the said provision will vitiate the order with regard to the entry in t

of the Copyright. The said requirement cannot be waived nor non-observance of the said provision can be said to be a mere irregularity. If a

an application under section 45 is not aware of the rival claim then the matter would be different. But in this case, as is evident from the notic

ppellants through their counsel, they were aware of the claim of the respondents and as such they should have given notice to the responde

g them of their intention to file an application for registration so that the respondents could have raised objections and, thereafter, the matter

en decided in terms of provisions contained in Section 45, read with Rule 16. In this case Rule 16 has not been followed before making the e

ster of Copyright under section 45 and, thus, the Board rightly came to the conclusion that non-observance of the provisions of Rule16 (3), w

ry in nature, has vitiated the certificate of registration in favour the appellants.

ht Infringement:

ringement: Direct infringement is a strict liability offence and guilty intention is not essential to fix criminal liability. The requirements to estab

opyright infringement under this theory are:

ership of a valid copyright; and

ing or infringement of the copyrighted work by the defendant.

person who innocently or even accidentally infringes a copyright may be held liable under the Copyright Act of the U.S. and under the laws o

untries. The guilty intention of the offender can be taken into account for determining the quantum of damages to be awarded for the alleged

ment.

utory infringement:

ributory infringement pre-supposes the existence of knowledge and participation by the alleged contributory infringer. To claim damages for

ment of the copyright, the plaintiff has to prove:

he defendant knew or should have known of the infringing activity; and

he defendant induced, caused, or materially contributed to another persons infringing activity.

s Infringement:

s copyright infringement liability evolved from the principle of respondent superior. To succeed on a claim of vicarious liability for a direct infrin
plaintiff must show that the defendant:

he right and ability to control the direct infringers actions; and

ed a direct financial benefit from the infringing activity.

arious liability focuses not on the knowledge and participation but on the relationship between the direct infringer and the defendant.

ecedent for vicarious copyright infringement liability has developed along two general relational lines. The first relational line involves the

r/employee relationship, whereas the second involves the lessor / lessee relationship.

and copyright infringement theories: The advent of information technology has made it difficult to apply the traditional theories to various cyb

nd organizations.

yberspace players can be grouped under the following headings:

net Service Providers (ISPs),

in Board Services Operators (BBSO),

mercial Web Page owner/operators, and

te users.

net Service Providers (ISPs):

most often provides Internet access and he may be held liable for copyright infringement. In Religious Technology Center v Netcom On-Line

nication Services, Inc a former minister uploaded some of the copyrighted work of the Church of Scientology to the Internet. He first transferr

on to a BBS computer, where it was temporarily stored before being copied onto Netcoms computer and other Usenet computers. Once the

on was on Netcoms computer, it was available to Netcoms subscribers and Usenet neighbors for downloading for up to eleven days. The p

Netcom about the infringing activity; nonetheless, Netcom refused to deny the subscribers access because it was not possible to prescreen

ers uploads, and kicking the subscriber off the Internet meant kicking off the rest of the BBS operators subscribers. Thus, plaintiffs sought a

Netcom for infringement under all three theories direct, contributory, and vicarious.

t first analyzed whether Netcom directly infringed plaintiffs copyright. Since Netcom did not violate plaintiffs exclusive copying, distribution,

ghts, Netcom was held not liable for direct infringement. The court then analyzed the third party liability theories of contributory and vicariou

ment. The court held that Netcom would be liable for contributory infringement if plaintiffs proved that Netcom had knowledge of the infringing

t then analyzed whether Netcom was vicariously liable. Here, once again the court found that a genuine issue of material fact supporting Ne

ability to control the uploaders acts existed. The court found that Netcom did not receive direct financial benefit from the infringement. Thus

nd that the Netcom was not liable for direct infringement, could be liable for contributory infringement if plaintiffs proved the knowledge elem

iable for vicarious infringement.

tin Board Services:

s are more vulnerable to copyright infringement litigations than the ISPs because they can operate independent of the World Wide Web.

case in this category was Playboy Enterprises, Inc v Frena.In this case, the defendant operated a subscription BBS that allowed the subscri

oad, and download material. The court held that Frena had violated Playboys exclusive distribution right and their exclusive display right. Be

pplied a product containing unauthorized copies of copyrighted work, he has violated the distribution right. Moreover, because Frena publicl

d Playboys copyrighted photographs to subscribers, he violated the display right. The court concluded that Frena was liable for direct infring

rena himself never placed infringing material on the BBS and despite his arguments that he was unaware of the infringement. The court reli
liability theory and held that neither intent nor knowledge is an essential element of infringement.

v Maphia the BBS was providing services to numerous subscribers who upload and downloaded files to and from the BBS. The evidence cl

hat the BBS operator knew that subscribers were uploading unauthorized copies of Segas video games to and downloaded from his BBS. T

d that since the BBS operators only knew and encouraged uploading and downloading, but did not himself upload or download any files, he

direct infringement. The court, however, found the BBS operator contributory liable. Regarding the knowledge element, the BBS operator ad

ad knowledge of the uploading and downloading activity. The court rejected the BBS operators asserted fair use defense since their activitie

ommercial in nature. Further, the nature of the copyrighted games was creative rather than informative and the entire copyrighted works wer

uploaded, and downloaded. This copying had adversely affected the Segas sale.

mercial Web sites:

b Page owners must be cautious of the things they post on their Web Pages so that they do not violate the stringent provisions of the copyrig

age owner cannot successfully plead and prove that they were unaware about the copyrighted material because copyright notices are prom

authorized software. They also have the controlling power over the content of their pages. The owner are usually the parties that actually pe

ads to their pages.

te Users:

ter user who uploads copyrighted material to the Internet is liable for direct infringement. This liability could be avoided only if he can prove t

rine. Thus, an Internet user should not post copyrighted material on the Internet in a casual manner.

copyright issues in India:

rence to on-line copyright issues can be found in the following two major enactments:

Copyright Act, 1957, and

nformation Technology Act, 2000.

right Act, 1957 and on-line copyright issues: The following provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 can safely be relied upon for meeting the ch

ation technology:

nclusive definition of computer is very wide which includes any electronic or similar device having information processing capabilities. Thus,

r containing a copyrighted material cannot be manipulated in such a manner as to violate the rights of a copyright holder.

erm computer Programme has been defined to mean a set of instructions expressed in words, codes, schemes or in any other form, includin

readable medium, capable of causing a computer to perform a particular task or achieve a particular result. It must be noted that Section13

tion 2(o) confers a copyright in computer Programme and its infringement will attract the stringent penal and civil sanctions.

nclusive definition of literary work includes computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer databases. Thus, the legislatu

equate care and provided sufficient protection for computer related copyrights.

opyrighted material can be transferred or communicated to the public easily and secretly through electronic means. To take care of such a s

right Act has provided the circumstances which amount to communication to the public. Thus, making any work available for being seen or h

e enjoyed by the public directly or by any means of display or diffusion other than by issuing copies of such work regardless of whether any

blic actually sees, hears or otherwise enjoys the work so made available, may violate the copyright. The communication through satellite or

r means of simultaneous communication to more than one household or place of residence including residential rooms of any hotel or hoste

ed to be communication to the public

opyright in a work is infringed if it is copied or published without its owners consent. The Copyright Act provides that a work is published if a

vailable a work to the public by issue of copies or by communicating the work to the public. Thus, the ISPs, BBS providers, etc may be held

t violation if the facts make out a case for the same.

opyright in a work shall be deemed to be infringed when a person, without a license granted by the owner of the copyright or the Registrar of

ts under this Act or in contravention of the conditions of a license so granted or of any condition imposed by a competent authority under thi

anything, the exclusive right to do which is by this Act conferred upon the owner of the copyright, or

ts for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of t

t in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infrin

ght

Copyright Act specifically exempts certain acts from the purview of copyright infringement. Thus, the making of copies or adaptation of a com

me by the lawful possessor of a copy of such computer Programme from such copy in order to utilize the computer Programme for the purp

was supplied or to make back-up copies purely as a temporary protection against loss, destruction, or damage in order only to utilize the com

me for the purpose for which it was supplied, would not be copyright infringement. Similarly, the doing of any act necessary to obtain informa

for operating inter-operability of an independently created computer Programme with other programmed by a lawful possessor of a comput

me is not a copyright violation if such information is not otherwise readily available. Further, there will not be any copyright violation in the

ion, study or test of functioning of the computer Programme in order to determine the ideas and principles, which underline any elements of

me while performing such acts necessary for the functions for which the computer Programme was supplied. The Act also makes it clear tha

of copies or adaptation of the computer Programme from a personally legally obtained copy for non-commercial personal use will not amoun

t violation.

erson knowingly makes use on a computer of an infringing copy of a computer Programme, he shall be held liable for punishment of impriso

m which shall not be less than seven days but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupe

ay extend to two lakh rupees. However, if the computer Programme has not been used for gain or in the course of trade or business, the cou

uate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, not impose any sentence of imprisonment and may impose a fine which may ext

sand rupees.

e noted that copyright can be obtained in a computer Programme under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. Hence, a computer Progr

e copied, circulated, published or used without the permission of the copyright owner. If it is illegally or improperly used, the traditional copyr

ment theories can be safely and legally invoked. Further, if the medium of Internet is used to advance that purpose, invoking the provisions of

t Act, 1957 and supplementing them with the stringent provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, can prevent the same.

mation Technology Act, 2000 and on-line copyright issues:

wing provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are relevant to understand the relationship between copyright protection and inform

gy:

on 1(2) read with Section 75 of the Act provides for extra-territorial application of the provisions of the Act. Thus, if a person (including a forei

violates the copyright of a person by means of computer, computer system or computer network located in India, he would be liable under t

s of the Act.

person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge of a computer, computer system or computer network access

access to such computer, computer system or computer network or downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or informat

mputer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium, he shall be liab

ages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected. Thus, a person violating the copyright of another b

ding or copying the same will have to pay exemplary damages up to the tune of rupees one crore which is deterrent enough to prevent copy
adjudging the quantum of compensation, the adjudicating officer shall have to consider the following factors:

mount of gain or unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as the result of the default;

mount of loss caused to any person as a result of the default;

epetitive nature of the default.

he copyright is violated intentionally and for earning profit, the quantum of damages will be more as compared to innocent infringement.

work service provider (ISP) will not be liable under this Act, rules or regulations made there under for any third party information or data mad

by him if he proves that the offence or contravention was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to pre

ion of such offence or contravention. The network service provider under section 79 means an intermediary and third party information mea

on dealt with by a network service provider in his capacity as an intermediary.

rovisions of this Act shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being

re of copyright in India:
yright laws in India are set to be amended with the introduction of the provisions for anti-circumvention and Rights Management Information
opyright regime although India is under no obligation to introduce these changes as it is not a signatory to WCT or WPPT.

amendment of the Copyright Act in 1994, which came into force on 10 May 1995, the situation with regard to copyright enforcement in India
d. According to Ramdas Bhatkal of Popular Prakashan, Bombay, "We had problems of piracy relating to medical textbooks before the law wa
d. At that time we found that while the law may be on our side, it was necessary to get a court order for search and this meant that there was
notice to the pirate to take defensive action before the court order could be implemented. Therefore we preferred to accept the situation and
Since the changes which make copyright violation a cognizable offence it has been possible to use the legal mechanism as a deterrent."

64 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 provides that "Any police officer, not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he is satisfied that an offen
ection 63 in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work has been, is being, or is likely to be, committed, seize without warrant, all co
, wherever found, and all copies and plates used for the purpose of making infringing copies of the work, wherever found, and all copies and
d shall, as soon as practicable, be produced before a magistrate."

a book is similar to stealing somebody's jewellery. Large scale organized copying is like robbing a jeweller's shop or a bank. But then, there
ference. In the case of a bank robbery the newspapers are full of sensational news and the whole might of the State, especially the police, ju
the culprit, there is pressure of public opinion even on the judge trying the case. The effect is electric.

ther hand, in the case of a book pirate, the police justify their inaction by pointing to murder dockets; the State deflects the desperate appea
t owners with nonchalance and the judge sits with a `so what' attitude while the man on the street remains in stark oblivion.

yright does not protect the idea but it does protect the skill and the labour put in by the authors in producing the work. A person cannot be he
gement of copyright if he has taken only the idea involved in the work and given expression to the idea in his own way. Two authors can prod

works from a common source of information each of them arranging that information in his own way and using his own language. The arran
ormation and the language used should not be copied from a work in which copyright subsists."

conclude, I must make it clear that despite the variety of cases given in this paper, there is not much piracy of books in India. By and large, t
iness interests, publishers and distributors try to enforce copyright to the best of their abilities. Yet, piracy hurts them hard because the book
ed invariably are the few with good margin and high demand. Deprived of the profits from such bestsellers the book industry starved of the m
capital for growth and investment in literary works of significance but low sales potential, especially by up-coming authors. Harsher measure
needed to curb piracy.

area of copyright infringement which needs to be tightened up relates to protection of author's rights vis-a-vis the assignee or the licensee. T
develop a model contract, too, which should also provide protection for the author's rights in the fast changing scenario of electronic publishi
etc.

ion:
isions of the abovementioned two enactments show that the Copyright protection in India is strong and effective enough to take care of the
t of the concerned person. The protection extends not only to the Copyright as understood in the traditional sense but also in its modern asp
-line copyright issues are also adequately protected, though not in clear and express term. To meet the ever- increasing challenges, as pose
circumstances and latest technology, the existing law can be so interpreted that all facets of copyright are adequately covered. This can be
by applying the purposive interpretatio technique, which requires the existing law to be interpreted in such a manner as justice is done in th
umstances of the case. Alternatively, existing laws should be amended as per the requirements of the situation. The existing law can also be
ented with newer ones, specifically touching and dealing with the contemporary issues and problems. The Information Technology Act, 2000
a new outlook and orientation, which can be effectively used to meet the challenges posed by the Intellectual Property Rights regime in this
on technology. Till the country has such a sound and strong legal base for the protection of Intellectual Property Rights, the judiciary should
e in the protection of these rights, including the copyright. The situation is, however, not as alarming as it is perceived and the existing legal
tively take care of any problems associated with copyright infringement.

Authored by: Mahendra Kumar Sunkar

(Hons.) IIIrd year - National Law Institute University - Bhopal